SSDs in new system build for photography

[cazza132]

I'm about to build a new system for heavy photography processing. I use DDP for raw file processing, 100+ megapixel layered *.psd/*.psb files in photoshop and PT Gui stitching software for panoramas.

I'm thinking about the foolowing system:
CPU - Intel Core i7 3930K - 6 cores for the heavy number crunching involved with PT Gui. 2011 socket good for Ivy Bridge.
RAM - 32 GB
OS and Programs - 1/256 GB SSD
Scratch and temporary files - 2/128GB SSD raid 0. I would also be using this as my disk for temporarily storing all files (RAW, 5GB+ photoshop files, etc) until I have finished the final *.tif for archive/jpeg conversion.
Seagate XT or WD Black 2TB - For storge of completed work and everything else.

RAW file conversion, reading and writing large photoshop files and running PT Gui panoramas (which I let a batch run overnight atm) are my main priorities. I'm thinking of using vertex 4 SSDs but not sure how SSDs will go with large photo shop files.

Hope someone can advise on the SSDs and my general strategy.

Cheers

 

[cmdrdredd]

Ssd is good for scratch disk as its very fast but if you are doing a lot of saving of temp files I might use a hdd instead to save the ssd from all the writes. We have a similar setup at work for Photoshop and illustrator. We just use a hdd for most storage tasks to offload the ssd drives a bit.

 

[Mark R]

The usual recommendation for a media workstation is as follows:
OS and Apps: HDD
Swap file/Scratch disk/temp file: SSD
Data: HDD

You can use an SSD for OS/Apps, and you can use an SSD for data - but this is an expensive solution, and there's little point in using SSDs for things like OS, which don't buy you any performance during work.

Yes, having your OS and Apps on an SSD, gives you a faster boot, and lets your apps open quickly - but think about it. If you are going to be working on a project all day, how many times are you actually going to be booting and loading photoshop? If you're anything like me, you load it once at the beginning of the day, and it stays running until you shutdown in the evening. If that's an accurate description, then you don't need to waste money putting OS/Apps on an SSD. If by contrast, you're running a much more general type system (e.g. dozens of different apps with multiple different projects getting worked on each day + web browsing, emails, etc.) then this will push you more towards an SSD for OS/Apps.

A similar argument can be made for data.

 

[tutuava]

On hard drives it's a good idea to have a separate drive for the scratch disk, but does it matter with an SSD? I do heavy graphics work as well and when I get my new computer I was planning on running the scratch disk on the SSD that stores the OS and apps (figuring it would be a big performance boost). Other than the space requirements are there any potential issues with this?

 

[Mark R]

No problem with having OS/apps on the SSD along with scratch. The OS/apps won't be being touched during work, so you won't be overloading the drive with work.

The only issue you might have with space.

 

[cmdrdredd]

The usual recommendation for a media workstation is as follows:
OS and Apps: HDD
Swap file/Scratch disk/temp file: SSD
Data: HDD

You can use an SSD for OS/Apps, and you can use an SSD for data - but this is an expensive solution, and there's little point in using SSDs for things like OS, which don't buy you any performance during work.

Yes, having your OS and Apps on an SSD, gives you a faster boot, and lets your apps open quickly - but think about it. If you are going to be working on a project all day, how many times are you actually going to be booting and loading photoshop? If you're anything like me, you load it once at the beginning of the day, and it stays running until you shutdown in the evening. If that's an accurate description, then you don't need to waste money putting OS/Apps on an SSD. If by contrast, you're running a much more general type system (e.g. dozens of different apps with multiple different projects getting worked on each day + web browsing, emails, etc.) then this will push you more towards an SSD for OS/Apps.

A similar argument can be made for data.

This is what we do...we have a Mac Pro with 24GB of memory running an SSD for apps and OS and scratch disk. All files are saved to HDDs and we have a NAS RAID for final storage of completed jobs.

 

[Coup27]

Regarding the actual SSD selection, I would not consider anything but a Samsung 830.

 

[Railgun]

I run 4x vertex 3s in a raid and do a lot of ps work too. It's more than adequate. I have a raid 10 array for storage. But more importantly I also run 12GB RAM. Granted not as much as your plan, but I don't do too many huge files.

You'll be fine. Though IMHO, I'd get a better raid controller than an on board one.

 

[kbp]

This is exactly what I do with my system with Photoshop and Nikon Capture2 thrown into the mix.
My system spec's below....

 

[bryanW1995]

Regarding the actual SSD selection, I would not consider anything but a Samsung 830.

I run 4x vertex 3s in a raid and do a lot of ps work too. It's more than adequate. I have a raid 10 array for storage. But more importantly I also run 12GB RAM. Granted not as much as your plan, but I don't do too many huge files.

You'll be fine. Though IMHO, I'd get a better raid controller than an on board one.

I wouldn't go so far as to say to ONLY use a Samsung 830, but I would definitely lean towards samsung/intel/crucial m4 as they are the most reliable ssd's on the market today. I would definitely steer clear of anything from OCZ if reliability is important to you.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I wouldn't go so far as to say to ONLY use a Samsung 830, but I would definitely lean towards samsung/intel/crucial m4 as they are the most reliable ssd's on the market today. I would definitely steer clear of anything from OCZ if reliability is important to you.

This is what I was going to say. I did my research before buying SSDs for myself.

 

[bryanW1995]

I agree that samsung is the best right now, the problem is that they are priced like they are the best as well. And performance difference between an 830/intel/m4 is small enough that the currently available street price should be the main purchase determining factor.

 

[capeconsultant]

Speed is not the only benefit to SSD. Power consumption, cooler, quieter and sometimes more reliable are also factors

I use SSD inside comp0uter and spinner for external backup. But I do not do much with big Photoshop files.

 

[cazza132]

Thanks for the replies. I'll look into the Samsung 830. I was looking at the Vertex 4s as they seem to do better with incompressible files. Loading and saving large files is important to me. Any thoughts on the vertex 4s with this.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Thanks for the replies. I'll look into the Samsung 830. I was looking at the Vertex 4s as they seem to do better with incompressible files. Loading and saving large files is important to me. Any thoughts on the vertex 4s with this.

OCZ has a horrible track record for reliability. I'd stay away just for that reason. Sure they're faster but you are going to be a beta tester for their firmware.

 

[Railgun]

Get a better controller and I'd bet they wouldn't. By controller I mean raid controller.

1+ year and 100% good.

 

[BogdanH]

Hi,
As some have mentioned "if reliability is important to you..." -of course it is!
The thing is, that SSD "behaves" very different compared to HDD. While HDD might come up with bad sectors over time, it will still work and you have enough time to replace it and save data. SDD however, either works or it doesn't. And if it stops working, then it is all of sudden -in short: no chance to rescue data.
I had OCZ Vertex SSD and one day, the thing simply wasn't recognized by BIOS anymore -like it is a empty plastic box: data lost, SSD lost. The guys there at OCZ forum pretend trying to help, but reality is, there isn't any solution.

... I was looking at the Vertex 4s as they seem to do better with incompressible files...

Yes, that's the reason why OCZ SandForce driven SSDs became so popular. However, even benchmark numbers are correct, in reality, user doesn't gain benefits of that.
The thing is, most files we are working with, are already compressed: Jpg, Gif, PNG, raw images, mp3, avi, mkv, Office documents, application (setup) installers, archive files (zip, rar,..), etc.
-and there is no (and can't be any) speed increase.
Just go with some brand with reputation (Samsung and Intel comes to mind) and you should be fine. Believe me: no matter what benchmark numbers say, in real usage, i.e. Samsung 830 is as fast as any similar SSD out there.

Bogdan

 

[hhhd1]

don't put any ssd in raid,
they will not do TRIM,
which will have a bad impact on write performance.

and i doubt that todays processors can even make use of 1000mb/s read that raid would provide.

use a regular harddisk only when random access is not an issue, .. like for storage, anything else were responsiveness is an issue, use ssd.

for reliability, use hd in raid 1 or 5

 

[Hugo Drax]

I'm about to build a new system for heavy photography processing. I use DDP for raw file processing, 100+ megapixel layered *.psd/*.psb files in photoshop and PT Gui stitching software for panoramas.

I'm thinking about the foolowing system:
CPU - Intel Core i7 3930K - 6 cores for the heavy number crunching involved with PT Gui. 2011 socket good for Ivy Bridge.
RAM - 32 GB
OS and Programs - 1/256 GB SSD
Scratch and temporary files - 2/128GB SSD raid 0. I would also be using this as my disk for temporarily storing all files (RAW, 5GB+ photoshop files, etc) until I have finished the final *.tif for archive/jpeg conversion.
Seagate XT or WD Black 2TB - For storge of completed work and everything else.

RAW file conversion, reading and writing large photoshop files and running PT Gui panoramas (which I let a batch run overnight atm) are my main priorities. I'm thinking of using vertex 4 SSDs but not sure how SSDs will go with large photo shop files.

Hope someone can advise on the SSDs and my general strategy.

Cheers

Sounds like a solution looking for a problem. I do heavy photography work on my PC (RAW files etc..)

No SSD, and I have no issues in terms of performance. You want RAM and a good CPU.

My second PC is going to have a 1TB Velociraptor + 1 SSD for SRT which makes a more intelligent use of the SSD since the system will automatically cache the hot files making the most optimal use of every GB on that SSD and the Velociraptor is a fast drive.

Why make life so complicated. You want to spend time working on the images, not managing some complex storage setup.

 

[Railgun]

don't put any ssd in raid,
they will not do TRIM,
which will have a bad impact on write performance.

and i doubt that todays processors can even make use of 1000mb/s read that raid would provide.

What? If you have good GC, TRIM is irrelevant. There's nothing wrong with putting SSDs in RAID 0.